The directive should not create legal uncertainty over the return of ultimate waste after reprocessing of spent fuel to the country where the nuclear fuel was used and should be fully in accordance with the 2006/117/ Euratom Council Directive on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel.

Each Member State should remain fully responsible for the choice of its own policy on the management of the nuclear waste and spent fuel within its jurisdiction, some choosing reprocessing of spent fuel, others aiming at final disposal of spent fuel with no other use foreseen.

4. Expresses its deep concern at the lower environmental and public consultation standards in Russia as regards radioactive waste and spent-fuels management; rejects the notion of Russia becoming the nuclear dustbin of Europe; asks therefore that the practice of exporting other hazardous material for disposal in third countries, which is prohibited under international law, be extended by the EU to cover all nuclear wastes and spent fuel and to all third countries; highlights the fact, furthermore, that transportation of nuclear waste poses serious environmental, health and safety risks;

Has the Commission already made an assessment and if not, will it undertake an immediate comparative assessment of the details of radioactive effluents and emissions released respectively from the Sellafield nuclear waste and fuel processing plant, operated by BNFL in the UK, and the La Hague nuclear waste and fuel processing plant, operated by COGEMA in France, as published in the Commission Radiation Protection Report 127, Radioactive effluents from nuclear power stations and nuclear fuel reprocessing plants in the European Union, 1995-1999, and the report prepared for the European Parliament's Scientific and Technological Options Assessment Programme ( ...[+++]STOA) on 'Possible Toxic Effects from the Nuclear Reprocessing Plants at Sellafield (UK) and Cap de la Hague (France)', published in December 2001 and November 2001 respectively?

Has the Commission already made an assessment and if not, will it undertake an immediate comparative assessment of the details of radioactive effluents and emissions released respectively from the Sellafield nuclear waste and fuel processing plant, operated by BNFL in the UK, and the La Hague nuclear waste and fuel processing plant, operated by COGEMA in France, as published in the Commission Radiation Protection Report 127, Radioactive effluents from nuclear power stations and nuclear fuel reprocessing plants in the European Union, 1995-1999, and the report prepared for the European Parliament's Scientific and Technological Options Assessment Programme ( ...[+++]STOA) on 'Possible Toxic Effects from the Nuclear Reprocessing Plants at Sellafield (UK) and Cap de la Hague (France)', published in December 2001 and November 2001 respectively?

5. Calls on the Council and Commission, working together with Parliament, to reconsider the justification for nuclear reprocessing and the production of MOX fuel per se, based on Article 6(2) of Directive 96/29/EC, in the light of the implications of the recent accidents and incidents, a process which should include scientists from NGO's, who have made the kinds of critique of reprocessing and MOX fuel and their safety, that have now been validated by the UK NII;